Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) has announced that it will begin enforcing statutory requirements on the contents of company business letters from August 1, 2026, warning that defaulting companies will face sanctions.

The commission disclosed this in a public notice signed by its management and posted on its X handle on Wednesday.

Recall that under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, company business letters are required to clearly display key details, including the company’s registered name, registration number, directors’ present forenames or initials and surnames, any former forenames and surnames, and the nationality of every non-Nigerian director.

The requirement applies to all company business letters, including invoices, quotations, official correspondence and other business documents.

According to the CAC, the enforcement will cover the full application of Sections 304(1), 304(2) and 304(1)(c) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020.

The commission said, “Commencing the 1st day of August 2026, the Commission shall enforce the full application of the requirements of sections 304(1) & (2) and (1)(c) of the Act with respect to company business letters with attendant sanctions for non-compliance.”

It reminded companies registered under the Act “to state in legible characters on its business letters, the present forename or initials and surname; any former forename and surname; and nationality of every non-Nigerian director as well as the company’s name and registration number.”

The commission urged affected companies to comply with the provisions before the enforcement date to avoid sanctions.

“The Commission remains committed to transparency, accountability and customer satisfaction as it strives to build a more resilient and responsive corporate regulatory environment,” the statement added.

According to Kaspersky’s latest findings, AI is highly appreciated among travellers for saving time, finding personalised recommendations and budget-saving offers. However, data security risks awareness is also high, which security experts call a good sign.

Kaspersky global research* revealed what drives active AI users to charge chatbots and AI-powered tools with the important responsibility of travel planning and how they estimate the security of such services. The survey shows that the primary motivation for turning to AI in travel planning is to save time and simplify preparation, with 73% of users globally pointing out these benefits.

Other important advantages of AI in traveling, named by 65% of respondents, are the search for information about the main attractions in the chosen location and personalised recommendations tailored to individual preferences. Additionally, 63% leverage AI to find the most favourable offers, while 61% trust it to uncover information that would otherwise be hard to find.

In fact, nowadays with the help of AI, an individual travel itinerary, matching all the requests and budget of a particular traveller, can be created in just a few clicks.

However, information provided by chatbots always needs to be double checked. There have already been several instances where tourists encountered issues because they trusted AI too much and did not conduct their own research for the trip.

What is more, not only the information, but even links provided by AI need to be checked, as there may be malicious and phishing links among them. Before clicking on a link from an AI chatbot it is recommended to check it with a cybersecurity solution, such as Kaspersky Premium, empowered with phishing detection.

AI and security

Apart from setting a route and searching for information, AI in travel planning in many cases is also responsible for booking hotels and even tickets, which inevitably requires sharing personal data. The Kaspersky global survey revealed that not all travellers are ready to entrust AI with their personal information.

Almost half (48%) of global respondents see security risks in AI usage and try not to share any sensitive data with it. Together with those, 37% who do not have many security concerns about AI still try to be careful while working with it.

86% of those who use AI for travel planning think about data security while working with these tools. Only 14% of travellers are confident that sharing any data with AI is totally secure.

According to the survey, travellers in Spain, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Africa express the greater concerns about AI-related risks, while those in China, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia in contrast display higher confidence in the security of AI systems.

“The survey highlights a noteworthy level of caution among travellers who use AI, which is a promising sign. A rational attitude is crucial for any type of online interactions, especially when we talk about personal data sharing. After all, your ‘private’ conversations with AI can still be exposed to cyber threats, or a favourable offer discovered by a chatbot may turn out to be nothing more than a scam.

This doesn’t mean you should abandon these digital tools altogether. Instead, stay mindful, avoid oversharing personal information, and think carefully while choosing which task you can assign to the AI. By doing so, AI-powered services can evolve into reliable assistants that help you tackle a wide range of challenges safely and effectively,” comments Vladislav Tushkanov, Group Manager at Kaspersky AI Technology Research Center.

Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court in Lagos has declared the N60 billion fine imposed by the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) on Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited Illegal.

Justice Bogoro stated that ARCON regulator exceeded its legal authority and breached the company’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.

He, who made the declaration while delivering judgment in Suit marked, FHC/L/CS/2205/2024, declared ARCON’s Notice of Violation/Demand for Compliance dated 21 October 2024, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void, and barred the agency from taking further steps to enforce it.

The judge also held that ARCON lacked the statutory power to impose fines for alleged criminal violations under the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act, 2022, without first obtaining a conviction from a court or other competent tribunal.

The dispute arose from ARCON’s claim that Facebook Nigeria displayed advertisements on Facebook and Instagram to Nigerian audiences without prior approval from the Advertising Standards Panel, contrary to provisions of the ARCON Act and the Nigerian Code of Advertising.

Following these alleged breaches, the regulator ordered the company to cease displaying the advertisements and imposed an N60 billion penalty.

Apparently dissatisfied with the development, Facebook Nigeria, through Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), its lawyer, challenged the action, arguing that ARCON lacked the legal authority to determine criminal liability or impose punitive sanctions via an administrative notice without allowing the company to defend itself.

The company also argued that it does not own or operate Facebook or Instagram, claiming both platforms are owned and controlled by Meta Platforms Inc., a separate foreign entity.

But ARCON, represented by Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), contended that Facebook Nigeria acts as Meta’s operation in Nigeria and should therefore be held responsible for regulatory violations related to advertisements on the platforms.

The regulator further argued that the notice was simply a compliance directive, allowing the company the option to comply, pay the specified violation fee, or face prosecution.

However, Justice Bogoro dismissed the regulator’s arguments.

The judge stated that Facebook Nigeria is a distinct legal entity from Meta Platforms Inc. and that ARCON failed to present credible evidence showing that the Nigerian company owns, operates, or controls Facebook or Instagram.

The court maintained that the argument that Facebook Nigeria represents Meta’s interests in Nigeria was insufficient to establish liability for the alleged advertising infractions.

Regarding fair hearing, the court ruled that ARCON violated Section 36 of the Constitution by accusing the company of misconduct and imposing a N60 billion fine without first hearing its defence.

Justice Bogoro also held that Section 57(4) of the ARCON Act explicitly requires the regulator to provide a fair hearing before imposing any penalty.

The court further found that the alleged violations were criminal because Section 34 of the ARCON Act designates the unlawful exposure of advertisements as an offence.

The judge also held that, since the Act stated that punishment can only be imposed “upon conviction,” ARCON had no authority to impose the N60 billion fine through an administrative process.

He insisted that, regardless of what ARCON called it, the demand was a fine that could only be imposed by a court following proper judicial procedures.

As a result, the court invalidated the Notice of Violation/Demand for Compliance.

It declared ARCON lacked authority to impose fines for breaches of Sections 34(3), 54, or other criminal provisions of the ARCON Act.

Justice Bogoro also issued a perpetual injunction preventing ARCON, its officers, agents, and associates from enforcing the October 21, 2024 notice against Facebook Nigeria.